I know many of you think that looking at the order of HHOF inductions is a worthless exercise, so feel free to ignore this. But I think that it can be a worthwhile view of what the hockey establishment thought of these players long after they retired.

I'm separating the pre-1910 generation from the 1910-1926 generation because I think there was a sense that guys who played earlier maybe should be inducted first. Whereas, on our list, most of us are going to take into account the fact that the 1910-1926 generation was drawing from a much larger talent pool than the pre-1910 one, which was drawing mostly from the Ottawa and Montreal metro areas.

I'm also combining the 1945 and 1947 classes for two reasons: 1) the 1945 class was composed entirely of deceased players, so 1947 was the first chance living players had of getting in. 2) the HHOF's official website may contain errors in which players were inducted in 1945 and 1947 (this has been posted elsewhere, and is basically irrelevant here if I'm going to just look at the two years together).

Keep in mind that the 1961 and 1962 classes were huge, and full of earlier-era amateur players.

If one Olympic tournament is going to be factored in to a player with such a short career, are we going to start talking about Saku Koivu for the top 80?

Is six seasons really that short when pretty much all of it is prime years though? It's not like Toews took much time to emerge. He was Conn Smythe winner in his third season. I don't know why Koivu was brought up, the guy was either injured or a 2nd line player for 80% of his career.

People can't even agree on #1 let alone a top-10. I'd be seriously surprised if there was anything resembling consensus on a top-10.

I think the top 3 will be close to consensus, but there's plenty of room for argument after that. I do agree with one of the original points that was made...it only gets harder as you go further down the list.

For all the hate he gets what are the opinions on Joe Nieuwendyk for the #60-#80 range?

I'm not planning on assembling a list, but I would think I'd find room for Joe towards the end, at least based on some of the other names that have been proposed in this thread. Brad Richards seems to have a good deal of support for inclusion towards the end of lists, and I would definitely have Nieuwendyk ahead of him.

He took a lot of heat in here over his HOF induction, so people might be tempted to drop him down their list to reinforce their opinion that he was a bad induction. One thing I always come back to is his inclusion on the 2002 Olympic team. That team was loaded, considered one of the best ever assembled, and the guys who selected it saw fit to include Nieuwendyk amongst that esteemed group. He was a guy who did tons of little things to help win hockey games.

People should also keep in mind that that a majority of the games (around 40) against Canada were against guys who were borderline AHL/NHL caliber.

But this is true for all of his teammates and his contemporary European opposition when playing against Canada. Likewise the predecessors on all European teams from the sixties and before when playing against Canada.

People should also keep in mind that that a majority of the games (around 40) against Canada were against guys who were borderline AHL/NHL caliber.

.

Is this actually true? Canada sat out the World Championships from 1970-1976 protesting the ban on professional players because they were tired of the Soviets smacking their amateurs around. They then returned using NHL players in 1977. Other games against Canada would include the 72 Summit (NHL players), 74 Summit (WHA players), Canada Cups (Best-on-best), and tours against NHL and WHA teams.

But even if it were true, then this would apply:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958

But this is true for all of his teammates and his contemporary European opposition when playing against Canada. Likewise the predecessors on all European teams from the sixties and before when playing against Canada.

Assists were very sparsely awarded in International hockey until recently. So all players were equally impacted.

Actually, in such an environment, any player who contributes to the offense much more through playmaking than goalscoring, is going to be negatively impacted, and a disproportionate goalscorer the opposite.

But this is true for all of his teammates and his contemporary European opposition when playing against Canada. Likewise the predecessors on all European teams from the sixties and before when playing against Canada.

Yes and I think we should keep that in mind.

Having non NHL guys when they deserve it is okay but not if we have to have them in all time periods as well.

I dont know where you guy have Peter Stasny but he and his 2 brothers escape from communist czecholovakia is a great scary story.Many of us dont like Morice Abut but what he did for stasnys cant be forgoten.There were Machine Guns involved agents and spyies

And yet when Maltsev's team finally played an NHL all-star team they were on even ground.

I can't imagine Maltsev finishing behind Nieuwendyk.

I think one needs to distinguish between any players individual talent and the team system they play in, especially with the early and non NHL Europeans.

Small samples of games and tournaments doesn't really tell us much as the NHLers were literally thrown together while Russian teams trained basically year round and in a total "like soccer" environment as well.

I doubt many people will have Maltsev behind Joe but we know how Joe actually stacked up to the best competition in the world over a long period of time.

Ffor Maltsev, is his scoring against Canada really that much of an indicator of his prowess over Joe?

It's just yet another example of giving a player the benefit of the doubt and putting the other player under the most severe of microscopes.

I think one needs to distinguish between any players individual talent and the team system they play in, especially with the early and non NHL Europeans.

Small samples of games and tournaments doesn't really tell us much as the NHLers were literally thrown together while Russian teams trained basically year round and in a total "like soccer" environment as well.

I doubt many people will have Maltsev behind Joe but we know how Joe actually stacked up to the best competition in the world over a long period of time.

Ffor Maltsev, is his scoring against Canada really that much of an indicator of his prowess over Joe?

It's just yet another example of giving a player the benefit of the doubt and putting the other player under the most severe of microscopes.

I would assume most people that saw Maltsev play would agree he was a more talented hockey player than Joe Newy.